- 13 -
against the Commissioner only with the utmost caution and
restraint. See id.; see also Hofstetter v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.
685, 700 (1992). The necessary elements of equitable estoppel
are: (1) A false representation or wrongful misleading silence;
(2) an error in a statement of fact and not in an opinion or a
statement of law; (3) ignorance of the true facts by the person
claiming the benefits of estoppel; and (4) adverse consequences
to the person claiming estoppel by the acts or statements of the
person against whom estoppel is claimed. See Estate of Emerson
v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 612, 617-618 (1977).
Equitable estoppel does not operate to preclude respondent’s
assertion of an open period of limitations because of the
bankruptcy proceeding. The Greenfields’ tax liabilities for 1982
were not at issue in the bankruptcy proceeding. Thus, the
bankruptcy court did not determine the Greenfields’ 1982 tax
liability. Simply put, because the Greenfields’ 1982 tax
liability was never before the bankruptcy court, a claim cannot
lie for equitable estoppel.
Neither does equitable estoppel operate to preclude
respondent’s assertion of an open period of limitations because
of Government correspondence to the Greenfields. Petitioners
argue that the July 21, 2000, and the October 11, 2006, letters
support petitioners’ claim of equitable estoppel. In the July
letter respondent stated: “According to our records, there are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008